User talk:Maunus

Ideas for vital articles (10'000)

Hello fellow vital project member, I had many ideas for additions to the vital 10'000 whilst away and busy. But thought I would ask others opinions of the almost 100 articles that came into my mind before flooding the project talk page with them. If you have time let me know which articles you like and which you dislike, I am still looking for removals as well by the way. (I listed my ideas on my own talk page, here). Carlwev (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I added Miriam Makeba under "Folk and popular music", but not under "non-English language singers." Please feel free to correct this if I'm mistaken. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am impressed that went through. Where she is located is of minor importance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

mathsci

Currently under full site ban: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Request for clarification (October 2013) NE Ent 23:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I know.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Monomyth category

Hi! I've started a discussion on the monomyth category on this talk page. Let's continue there. --Devadatta (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Great idea.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And I've taken him to ANI because he is mass removing it from articles without discussion. See for instance The Oxford Companion to World Mythology[1] which doesn't mention Campbell. He isn't actually looking to see if the articles are discussed in terms of monomyths by reliable sources, he's just reverting. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Subtiaba-Maribo"

Hi Maunus,

Do you know anything of Maribo/Maribichicoa/Guatajiguala? Sapir thought it might have been Subtiaba, or perhaps closest to Subtiaba, and Campbell apparently questioned that, but I can't find any details. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. I'll take a look when I have a moment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For hard work and high quality. bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know where our paths have crossed exactly, but happy you liked my work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wtf? listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Wtf?. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Wtf? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mixtec

Hi,

Not claiming it's the native name, or even a native name, but I've seen "Ñudzahui" in the lit as a synonym for Mixtec, sometimes without explaining that's what it means. Sure, it's used in the sense of "the language of the Ñudzahui", but it still might be something people need to ID. AFAIK, none of the names you provided are used as an English name for Mixtec, or for the complex as a whole. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ñu means people, tu'un means language, dzavui means rain (not sure in which variety). So Ñudzahui refers to the people of the rain, and tu'un dzavui to the language of the rain. It is of course likely that someone somewhere in the literature made the simple translation mistake of using the word for the people also for the language given that in Spanish and English they are the same. That doesnt mean we need to repeat that mistake. Much less in the infobox. The nomenclature is discussed in the section about that and Ñudzahui is not mentioned. Yavidaxiu whose edit you undid, is coincidentally a native speaker. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned as the name (yes, of the people) in the naming section as "Classical Mixtec", which basically just means colonial sources, though as usual in English, the name of the people can be used for the language. Good to have native speakers here. I'm doubtful listing dozens of local variants of the endonym does much for the article. Certainly good to have them in the individual Mixtec-language articles, though. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The mention of Classical mixtec says does not say that ñu dzavui means Mixtec language, but that tuun ñu dzavui does, i.e. "language of the mixtec people". It makes no sense to say that "I speak Englishmen" or that "I speak German people" in English. It does make sense to say I speak mixtec, but that is opnly because it is borroed from the Spanish which uses Mixteco as an adjective, though the original Nahuatl also referred only to the people.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ken Ham

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Sorry if "wordiness" rubbed you the wrong way. Your proposed language was good, clear, readable prose. I meant no offense. I am an advocate of a highly concise summary in the lead. I disagree with your characterization "slogans". These are personal differences in editorial style and opinion and I am more than open to compromise. I think you are making a valuable and balanced contribution to the discussion and sincerely hope you continue to participate. I would like to see some of the content you are suggesting for the lead in the body with some expansion and sources. I will look for the sources and if you are interested I can post what sources I find here (I'll likely post them to the talk page anyway). I am more of a red pencil editor and researcher than a writer so if I find material that you could adapt to prose I think it would benefit the article. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and of course characterizing the pithy prose strategy as writing in slogans was also hyperbole on my part. I do think it reads very bad when skeptical type editors insist on appending "which is considered pseudoscience" or "which has no basis in modern science" to every sentence that mentions one of their pet peeves. It makes for poor prose and can be avoided by simply describing belief as belief, fringe theory as fringe theory and science as science. I think wikipedia would do good to maintain a view of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria. Ham's business is in the latter of course.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited!

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Please clarify your way of approaching this revert?

I see that you have deleted my previous request for comment on repeatedly reverting my edit here on your talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMaunus&diff=603489665&oldid=603489081

And I see that you have reverted one more of my edit on another article, when I noticed I have stopped. I would want to understand your concern before making similar edits.

This time, here is my edit summary: Indian independence movement: The citation has no validity as "internal Congress report published in 1947" and it does not mention the content on page 135. Please reinstate with valid reference only.

When you reverted you gave this edit summary: Undid revision 603493570 by Jyoti.mickey (talk) reinstating, please dont remove referenced content in this aggressive way, if you must then add a citation request tag.

My questions is when I have provided in the summary "The citation has no validity as "internal Congress report published in 1947" and it does not mention the content on page 135." then why should I leave it around with citation needed tag? That book is definitely not a "internal Congress report published in 1947" and the content was not available in referenced place so I considered removing it. Can you please clarify your viewpoint? Jyoti (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please conduct further discussions at the talkpages of the articles in question. Whether or not the book that is cited IS the report is irrelevant since it may very well mention the report. I am currently investigating that, but you leave me little time with your aggressive removal fo anything you can find an excuse for removing. You clearly do not check the books to verify the citations, or look very far for other ones so I have to do that now and reinstated the citeable material you have removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I already said "when I noticed I have stopped.". I take objection to your wild accusation "You clearly do not check the books to verify the citations" -- I did. I will wait for you to cross-check. Jyoti (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your good edit at president page.

Hi Maunus; Your recent good edit for subsection title refinement at the Obama page was brought to question about neutrality. The new title looked usable and possibly you could look at the Talk page there and leave a drop-in comment. Perhaps you could glance at this. FelixRosch (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Contract w God excerpt page 18.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Contract w God excerpt page 18.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Spørgsmål

Er du Dansker? Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ja.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ban

You proposed a ban w/o providing any evidence. Would you provide some page links so we know what you're talking about? — kwami (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is there for everyone to see in your edit history, and in your long history of of disputes and grievances over undiscussed controversial moves. I am sorry about this, you know I respect you as an editor and linguist, but it is just getting too ridiculous what you and Skookum are fueling. You also know that I generally agree with you in relation to move requests, but move warring is disruptive for everyone, and helps noone. Ideally you would both simply agree not to move any articles but to file move requests and then let admins do the moves - but somehow I dont think such a mutual agreement is likely to happen. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There was Halkomelem, where I contributed *one* move in a move war. At least recently, where else is there? I would appreciate it if you specified what you're talking about.

I've also been trying to get people involved. If people agreed on the changes that Skookum wants, fine, I just don't think we should move ≈5,000 articles without some actual consensus. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please answer. You say I've been move warring in Native American language articles. In the past month, I've done that once. You've never complained on my talk page, you've never emailed me saying I need to cut it out, nothing. If you're going to call for a ban, the least you can do is present the evidence. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I really would like an answer. Not something from two years ago, since I stopped those moves when people got irritated, but something relevant to today. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right you have only moved warred once in this month on the Halkomelem article. Skookum has been doing it more recently, and you more in the past. Given the circumstances I couldnt ask for just one of you to be sanctioned. I hope you understand.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't. Responses should be proportional. — kwami (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt seem likely that there will be any response.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I lost my adminship because of something like this: There was a move request (for a city, nothing to do with languages), and someone closed the discussion and moved the article to what was clearly not the consensus name, people complained, and I moved it to the obvious consensus. Because I used my admin tools to do so (though without being aware I was doing so, since the move button looks the same either way), it was "wheel-warring". Someone brought me up on charges, the discussion was rather silly and didn't seem to be going anywhere, so I presented my case and didn't pay it much more attention. Meanwhile another admin moved the article back to the obviously consensual name I had moved it to, and most people were happy (it's still there today). Months later, after I'd forgotten there even was a case, I was stripped of my adminship, and was even told that although it was a trivial matter, I deserved it because I hadn't been sufficiently engaged in my own defense. So God knows what's going to happen here. — kwami (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat riots

Dude my line just provide balance and is not biased. U can improve language if u want. It provides another side and otherwise whole para and line by Martha Nabbassum is indeed biased.(talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your line does not provide balance but bias, and it gives an undue degree of detail for the lead. Get consensus before inserting it again. If you keep editwarring to get your text in you will likely just be blocked.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And no, Nussbaums statement is not biased, it is a summary of the views of experts on the matter. That is the opposite of bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Who decided the consensus ? U people just give threats of Blocking to prevent your biased article from edit. So, if Martha's statement is not biased . How is SIT's report biased. My line is properly sourced. (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the talkpage. There is a thread about whether to include Nussbaum or not. There was no consensus to remove her statement. The SIT report is already mentioned in the lead, and there is no advantage to adding more detail of it in the lead. IF you wish to include that material you should start a thread on the talkpage and there gain consensus for your proposal. WIkipedia pages are not changed through editwarring, and you will be blocked for it. Not because of your viewpoint but because you dont follow wikipedias policies about editing as your talkpage clearly shows.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Friend, just because I'm reorganizing things doesn't mean the paragraphs are removed. Nearly all of the material is still there, just into different paragraphs. For example, the VHP material is now organized together, even though that meant splitting it up slightly. I'm not just copy-pasting things here. That article has zero organization as it stands.The-Postman (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Friend, please follow our policies and get consensu prior to carrying out edits likely to be controversial. Lay out yuor vision for how to improve the organization of the article. You will gain nothing by attempting to "organize" the article unilaterally. Wikipedia doesnt work that way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What material has been removed? I will gladly reinsert what you find.The-Postman (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at all your edits together I can see that you are right, it was only the last edit that removed material that was already inserted below. I apologize. Still you need to get consensus before making significant and contoversial changes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I thank you, sincerely, for relenting. I'm going to put out there that I honestly know very little about this topic and have very little vested interest in this. I pulled up this page when Modi came in the news recently and was just floored at this article. It is extremely well-cited, but it's a mess. My goal here is to remove no, if any, content, even where bizarre, but just to place similar topics together. The "government involvement" thing runs through every line of the page, which is not only biased, but also prevents a reasonable look at any of the individual topics. I swear I'm not some Hindu nationalist.The-Postman (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Lack of vested interest is a good thing, it is also my lack of interest that makes me limit my efforts on the article to countervailing the vested interests of hindu nationalist editors. I agree that it is a mess, but you would help everyone by outlining your plan for reorganizing it on the talkpage before proceeding with large scale cleanup.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Uto-Aztecan

I see you have worked on Uto-Aztecan languages, great. Is there any hope of sourcing the sentence I have re-added? At least it appears correct to me ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure that it is a very important inclusion, I think it is possible to source the significance of Sapirs comparative work - but since he also did important work on Algic and other families I am not sure that it will be easy to cite it specifically about his Uto-Aztecan work (which consists basically in two articles).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, if you think that Uto-Aztecan does not stand out in his comparative work and that the sentence is better left out, feel free to remove it again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure. Uto-Aztecanists certainly found his two Uto-Aztecan papers impressive, but all the statements I can find are about his comparative work in general. At this point I'll let it stand.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Classic Maya collapse

You've probably seen my edit here after an IP pointed out we were linking to the wrong person. There had been no source and I've fixed that. But the whole section seems untidy and a bit OR. Could you put this on a todo list? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont think I am watching that actually. I'll take a look when I have a chance. :)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 3 June 2014

(UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Pinker

Hi, I'm not quite sure where we've got to on this one - are you waiting for someone to do something? I think your comments on the article have been addressed. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I saw you were doing some work in response to my comments, but didn't want to rush you. I'll take a look at it over the next days.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:VA/E/A and Piano

The strings in a piano are not strummed or plucked. A piano is a percussion instrument. pbp 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The areticle states that it is considered as either in different systems.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I watched piano strings being plucked in several concerts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Mesoamerican languages
Thank you for sharing your profound knowledge of Mesoamerica, especially its rich heritage of languages and the linguists who care about them, like Benjamin Lee Whorf, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (13 August 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 161st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - thank you also for help with Kafka and memory, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Level 4 vital articles list of 10,000 articles

Hi, Maunus,

I see that amid your other busyness you are participating in the editor discussion about the level 4 vital articles list. May I ask your help as I suggest restructuring the list of psychology articles based on resources hosted by WikiProject Psychology? Comparably, I would be glad to look into and comment on suggestions you make on the anthropology articles once you have had time to look at those. I've already suggested some trims (I will eventually suggest additions) to the list of organisms articles, and I would be delighted to see more editor comment on those. I think I've said what I have to say about the sports figures already, and there are a lot of other categories on the 10,000 list that need work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the proposal you talk about? Ive proposed addition of some vital psychology articles in the past. I am not sure wikiproject importance and vitality amounts to the same thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Så begynder "showet" om ID igen på da wiki, med Rmir2 som medaktør.

PerV (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I believe that WP:BURDEN means it is Jyoti's responsibility to prove he is worthy of inclusion; I've taken it to the noticeboard, though, because he is being rather recalcitrant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Since you commented at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#The State of GAC, I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Formal decision on nomination limit. Most people who commented on the initial discussion do not seem to be following this page, because the formal decision has gotten very few responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Political Correctness

Hello. You removed my addition of as " too tangential" Care to elaborate? The reason why I added this link is that a number of criminal transmission of HIV cases have been delayed or not pursued because of political correctness: the perpetrators were Black immigrants and complained of institutional racism of police and media. See e.g. Simon Mol, or this one, where publishing the photo led to complaints from politicians, who by doing so were, precisely, politically correct:

The first case of criminal HIV infection in Finland was that of Steven Thomas, a Black US citizen from New York, who was convicted in 1997 in Helsinki for knowingly infecting Finnish women with HIV during 1993–1996. In January 1997, Finnish police published Thomas' picture in newspapers and stated that Thomas may have infected tens or even hundreds of Finnish women with HIV. Seventeen women said they had been in unprotected sexual contact with Thomas.

"Some Finns, including leading politicians, voiced concerns about privacy rights and said publishing the picture risked labelling a whole group of foreigners or black people as suspicious. Finland has a very low rate of HIV infection and a relatively very small black population. "

References

Zezen (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• The see also section is not a place where editors can dump links to any article that they personally consider to be an example of the topic of the article. That would get unwieldy very quickly, and also it wouldnt be useful for the reader who in each case would have to guess at how a specific link relates to the topic. In your case it is even more problematic because the view that each case is in fact a case of political correctness is likely to be contested. What is political correctness for you may be simply ethical behavior and commonsense for someone else. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly tangential. It's only your interpretation that this is political correctness. Your sources don't say that it is. And at Simon Mol I've now reverted you twice. Your claim that Mol is a parallel "cases" (your word) is original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I note there is a substantial amount of unsourced material at Simon Mol. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

" substantial amount of unsourced material " Which claims are unsourced? I will be happy to fix the sources. There are fortunately many newspaper reports available - see the Polish page of this article. Zezen (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph starting "On 6 March 2007" and there is no way Wikipedia should be stating that a newspaper proved something. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Maunus, I've tried to remove some OR at Simon Mol but it's been reinserted by Zezen, a Mikemikev sock and an IP. I've taken this to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've raised some sourcing issues concerning Mol at WP:RSN#Criminal transmission of HIV, Blacks & political correctness. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA?

FA is a big step, as we discussed before, but don't you think that a GA nomination of language would be pretty easy? You won't be forced to jump through the hoops of a full FAC and I think it could easily pass as is. The article easily deserves that distinction. If anything, I think it'd be a boon to the general readership to see at least some sort of mark of quality.

Just a suggestion, though. :-)

Peter ^Isotalo 10:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but you nominate it please, no? I'll participate from the sidelines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Just jump in if discussion gets too complicated.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

POV sources are not Wikipedia reliable sources except for limited uses

The real problem with Mankind Quarterly as a source for any Wikipedia article except about itself and some aspects of the biographies of contributors is that it is a POV source, and thus not a reliable source for most kinds of factual statements per WP:RS: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." There are reliable sources that point out that Mankind Quarterly has never been careful about its editorial practices, notably Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) and later writings by the same author. Certainly, it would be a poor use of sources to rely on a Mankind Quarterly book review to evaluate a book pushing the same point of view as Mankind Quarterly itself, but in fact Mankind Quarterly has often been used to promote books that would get very little favorable notice otherwise. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Weiji, that is incorrect. POV sources can be used fine in so far as they are reliable for the topic at hand. Indeed ALL sources represent a POV. There is no view from nowhere. For Mankind Quarterly that pretty much means that it is only a reliable source regarding the view of authors who publish in Mankind Quarterly, in the same way that blogs can be used as sources for the views of their authors. The question then becomes whether the views of their authors are so notable that they merit inclusion. It does not seem to me that Lynn's 2010 article has received any attention outside of the small circle of his immediate professional network. What makes Mankind Quarterly different from e.g. the APA journal is not that the former is POV and that the second isn't, but that the second can be relied on to reflect the perspective of a large and influential body of professionals who also vouch for the factuality of specific data in the work (making it a reliable source for facts), whereas the former reflects the perspective of a small minority and does not have a good record of fact checking. It is important to separate the question of POV and bias from the question of reliability for facts and established scientific consensus.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to check for sources; let's be very careful about BLP issues per Wikipedia policy

Maunus, if you look back at the article edit history, you will attempts on the Hereditarianism article to label living authors as "hereditarians" solely because they have published on human behavior genetics topics. It seems probable to me that some such persons also have "hereditarian" views as defined (currently with poor sourcing) by the article, but it is also plainly clear in the professional literature that some persons who engage in that research neither self-designate nor are designated by others as "hereditarian." That being the state of the professional literature, it is wise for us to source each and every claim that someone is hereditarian in point of view, especially any living person. Of course I will not object to well sourced edits from the keyboard of any editor. It would help the article immensely to have more good sources identifying who is aligned with exactly what position, as it is probably not true that all people who accept the designation "hereditarian" agree on all subissues connected to that point of view. We should check the sources, and find out the individual facts one by one. I can even suggest a source, namely one of the latest newly published books I am reading, Aaron Panofsky (7 July 2014). Misbehaving Science: Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-05859-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help). I would not say that this book is the last word on its subject, but the author has conducted extensive interviews with living persons and a remarkably thorough literature search to see what current behavior genetics researchers say about their own field. Not everyone who works in that field of research has a "hereditarian" position, not by far. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So why are you intent on removing Murray and not the 7 other unsourced additions, including his coauthor of the worlds best known hereditarian work?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As I just said in my edit summary, a dead person has a different application of WP:BLP from a living person. (And it's plain enough to someone who follows the scientific literature on the topic, as I do, that Herrnstein's point of view was always distinct from Murray's.) Meanwhile, if this is such a plainly obvious point, why has no one come up with a reliable, published source, as WP:BLP requires? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bell Curve has two authors. Only one of them is dead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think that "hereditarian" is such a controversial term that it needs to receive BLP attention. I think you are here, again, picking the wrong fight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"In the past few years hard-line hereditarians such as Arthur Jensen and the authors of the controversial book The Bell Curve- Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray- have continued vigorous debates with those who maintain that environmental influencs on IQ are very strong..."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I was glad to see you reminding other editors about Wikipedia core policies

Hi, Maunus,

I guess we both watchlist a user talk page where the user says he is "not interested" in points of view other than his own, even if they are reported in reliable sources. That's too bad, as a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and there is a lot to learn by reading the best reliable sources. I've changed my personal point of view on lots and lots of issues over the years as I read more widely and gain in age and life experience. Thanks for reminding onlookers there about core Wikipedia policies. I continue to stand by the idea that I'm a fallible human being, and reasonable people might disagree with any of my edits, for any reason, but the way forward for Wikipedia is for all of us to bind ourselves to referring to the reliable sources on any topic that Wikipedia treats, so that articles improve, regardless of what each of our individual opinions is. (P.S., I am rather amazed that another editor was looking for "prurient" sources on that same user talk page. Perhaps his spelling correction program did him in.) See you on the wiki. As always, feel free to visit my user talk page (or, as appropriate, an article talk page) to let me know what you think about my edits, and to recommend sources or improvements in my general editorial approach. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

TFA

Hi again, Maunus. Good news: Natchez revolt is now at Today's Featured Article requests. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I hope it comes up soon. Maybe on the anniversary on november 29th. :)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We've run into a little scheduling issue, but it should get worked out. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America

Thanks for creating this. I agree with you that it is helpful to expose these people and ideas. Are you able to find more members/trustees/donors? Also, when did it end?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

One source says it was "short lived" I tend to assume that it slowly faded away after the victories with the 1924 racial integrity act, and probably was completely gone by the time that the public started becomong disenchanted with racialism and eugenics prior to the American entry in WW2.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Lots of people are still racist, but they don't say it openly. I myself was a victim of racism and antisemitism in Nashville for example; and they were all Democrats, some of them with PhDs btw. I'd be very interested if you were able to find more people from Tennessee connected to this organization. Hopefully we will be able to expand this page as we find more references.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I didnt mean to suggest that racism disappeared, I was only referring to the Anglo-Saxon clubs and public support for eugenics. I am very aware thatracism, social darwinism and eugenics still exists. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a continuum with Virginia Abernethy and others. Btw, are you interested in creating Peace Movement of Ethiopia, a black organization who agreed with Cox and supported repatriation?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the article about Marcus Garvey a bit to reflect his correspondence with Cox, but otherwise no, I dont think I would be interested in writing that article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to work on it. I am finishing a book today, so not right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Earnest Sevier Cox. How do you know he did not support them if he worked with them? And where does it say he worked with Marcus Garvey? (There might be a source for that; it's been a long day. But while creating the Peace Movement of Ethiopia, I only saw that one mentioned.)Zigzig20s (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You havent read the sources. I will be interested in conversing with you when you have.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Peace Movement of Ethiopia is fully sourced and the sources say he started working with them in 1934 (it is that precise!), but I'm not sure any sources say he worked with Marcus Garvey. If you don't have any sources for it, why did you add it?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Go away, I dont find you amusing anymore. Come back when you have read the many many sources at the article about Cox.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have re-read them now; I did say it had been a long day. No need to be aggressive.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When people are dense or dissimulative I get impatient.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Race classification socking

There are multiple South Korean IP socks going on over at the [classification talk]. I opened a case, and also link to another user-account owned by this person. I think most people know who this is of course. He was socking over at Rationalwiki which recently caused the race entry talk pages there to be protected because of excessive vandalism. Since those pages are on lock-down, it looks like he has increased his socking activities here in the last week or so. FossilMad (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)